180 Proof

It couldn't be "hidden" from us because a "nonphysical afterlife" is, by definition, imperceptible to physical perception, otherwise it would be physi...

Interesting, but I'm not proposing 'elimination by induction' in the post you cited.

I wasn't responding to a post with any philosophical content, so I gave back what I got, sir. And no surprise, again you decline the opportunity to en...

Well, what do you think of my criterion for "proof" of the supernatural in my previous post just before yours, Art?

Don't hold me to this but I vaguely recall that Heisenberg et al's matrix mechanics (re: possible-states of observables) provides a non-mystical, thou...

:up: :up: What do you think?

After I posted. It's clear as mud to me.

"Forward-flowing" is a cognitive illusion and intuitive way of talking about asymmetric change. "History" represents time-as-past-tense-narrative (i.e...

Here's where I depart from philosophical convention (tradition): anachronistic "what is" (or "to be") is merely a sentence fragment – placeholder – th...

:smirk:

I think that to observe a change in nature which – within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' – could not be caused, even in principle, by any nat...

So theists and deists, acosmists and pandeists belueve.

As someone who has studied Spinoza for decades and has also read hundreds of your posts (as well as snippets of your verbose blog), I assure you, sir,...

I can't say because I reject your premise (for reasons I've already given) so the rest of the OP doesn't matter to me.

:up: :up:

Not only TPFers but also according to that ontological mfer Martin Heidegger. :victory:

Yeah; also that "time" is neither "temporal" nor a "phenomenon". (I think you're confusing (your) maps with the territory.)

Yet Heidegger uses Dasein, not Sein, to distinguish 'humans' from 'mere beings' (i.e. Seiendes) as pointed out here on p. 2 of this thread. So unless ...

With respect to contemporary fundamental physics, I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even in Kant, these concepts are not directly related...

Not really. Due mostly to illness the last several months, I spend a lot of time with my mother at her place in a senior citizen community. She's devo...

I don't see what "time" and "cause & effect" have to do with one another. IIRC, the equations of QFT lack time variables and those of GR, SR, etc are ...

:smirk:

Deus, sive Natura :up:

"Too young to die?" SIDS. Otherwise, any age is fair game since growing old – tomorrow – ain't promised to any living thing. :death: :flower:

:up: :up:

For me, the last decade or so I've been reflectively summing up a lifetime of study and peak experiences, hardships and beneficial failures. I'm still...

Nope. It seems to me supernatural is synonymous with necessaeily fictional (i.e. impossible).

:up: :100: Unfortunately, @"Wayfarer" seems acutely alleergic to contrary evidence. :up:

I think "beyond" is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernat...

:roll: 'Materiality' corresponds to embodied change and 'immateriality' (e.g. idealism) to disembodied change. Yes, the latter doesn't make sense and ...

Well done, and more or less my take on Kant's project as well. My question, apparently, wasn't clearly stated or precisely focused, but your precis gi...

:pray: :lol:

Also, isn't obeying "the command to love God" (by God!) akin to consensual rape or willing slavery? Toxic. :mask:

So you can't even honestly reply without a wall of quoted texts to this poll . Pathetic. :shade: :up: @"universeness" @"ucarr"

:up: :up: :up: Just a guess, but I've always had a strong suspicion, based soley on his/her posts, that @"NOS4A2" is someone who desperately needs to ...

Simulating "pocket" universes. :nerd: If and when strong – self-aware – AGI 'emerges', human intelligence will be obsolete. :100:

Btw, on an adjacent topic which you might be more willing – able – to answer directly: the conception that is most consistent with your metaphysical o...

So "simple" that you can demonstrate this and yet haven't bothered to – why? Just because you keep saying it doesn't make your definition a "fact". :r...

Quoting a secondary source in no way refutes H's conspicuous use of the terms which I pointed out; also, your post doesn't even address how your idios...

:100: :smirk:

Assuming 'self-referential phenomenological processes' constitute subjectivity ... ... Subject-things Object-things Objects with subjects¹ (e.g. perso...

Ask Wayfarer about his terminology. I tried to tease out the implications that call his terms in question, but not to much effect.

You'd have to read Wayfarer's post from which I quoted and responded to with my post.

I agree, and this is not the question I've asked.

https://youtu.be/ZHLtOKlHBFI "It's moving but it's not sentimental."

Speaking for myself, I start and then stop at 'what we say about g/G', that is, 'what religious scriptures attribute to (the) deity', and assess them ...

Here's the first in a series of lectures by one of the founders of 'quantum computational theory' David Deutsch which explains in summary the fundamen...

And likewise also prudent to dismiss your statement about a "non-conscious being" which implies such a presumption. Explain how this "idea" follows fr...

Possibly. :sweat:

:cool: :party: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557684